Driskill et al v. Rosenberg et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered re: 31 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge C Clifford Shirley on 6/24/2011. (copies mailed to pro se plaintiffs) (KMK)

UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
GENE DRISKILL, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,

V.
GRANT ROSENBERG, et al.,
Defendant.

No. 3:10-CV-65
(VARLAN/SHIRLEY)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case is before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the Rules of this Court,
and the order of the District Judge [Doc. 32] referring Plaintiff Tom Driskill, Sr.’s Motion for
Reconsideration to Appoint Thomas Driskill, Sr., and Sons an Attorney [Doc. 31] to the undersigned
for disposition. 1
In his motion, the Plaintiff requests that the Court appoint an attorney to represent him in this
matter. In support of this request, the Plaintiff describes the attorney supplied to him by Legal Aid,
Leslie Muse, whom he states was only willing to assist with an appeal in this matter. [Doc. 31 at 2].
The Plaintiff describes the documents he supplied to Ms. Muse and his and his mother’s interactions
with Ms. Muse and her office personnel. The Plaintiff notes his dissatisfaction with his Ms. Muse
not responding to his phone calls.

1

The motion is written so as to request relief on behalf of Thomas L. Driskill, Jr., and Gene
Driskill in addition to Thomas L. Driskill, Sr., but the motion itself is only signed by Thomas L. Driskill,
Sr. Thomas Driskill, Sr., is not an attorney, and he can only represent his interests before the Court, not
the interests of Gene Driskill or Thomas L. Driskill, Jr. Accordingly, the motion will be interpreted as
only containing a request for relief from Thomas L. Driskill, Sr., who the Court will refer to as “the
Plaintiff.”

The Plaintiff also describes his suspicions that a neighbor has previously aided the police
auxiliary and that is why certain complaints the Plaintiff has made to police have been ignored. [Doc.
31 at 5 to 6]. The Plaintiff describes his dissatisfaction with his interactions with the office of
Congressman John Duncan, Jr., his dissatisfaction with his interactions with the United States
Department of Justice, and his dissatisfaction with his interactions with the office of Senator Lamar
Alexander. [Doc. 31 at 7-18]. The Plaintiff also alleges that the Knoxville Mediation Center and the
Knox County Law Director’s Office have not appropriately responded to the Plaintiff’s request for
a mediation in this case. [Doc. 31 at 19-21].
Finally, the Plaintiff acknowledges that he has received the Memorandum Opinion entered
by District Judge Thomas Varlan, but he states that he has not read the opinion because of the grief
it causes him. [Doc. 31 at 22]. The Plaintiff alleges that a conspiracy has been undertaken to deny
him justice. [Doc. 31 at 24].
As the Court stated in its Order [Doc. 13] entered June 21, 2010, “Appointment of counsel
in a civil case is not a constitutional right. It is a privilege that is justified only by exceptional
circumstances.” Lavado v. Keohane, 992 F.2d 601 (6th Cir. 1993) (internal citations omitted). In
determining whether exception circumstances exist the Court must consider the complexity of the
factual and legal issues involved. Id.
The Court has thoroughly reviewed the Plaintiff’s filing, but the Court finds no evidence of
extraordinary circumstances nor any evidence of a complex legal or factual issue. While the Court
may empathize with the Plaintiff’s frustration at his situation, this frustration does not constitute
grounds for appointing counsel in this matter.

2

Further, and more importantly, the Clerk of Court entered a Judgment [Doc. 26] in this case
on May 4, 2011. This case is closed. There are no claims pending, and the time for filing a notice
of appeal has expired. Thus, there are no pending issues on which an appointed attorney could offer
aid in this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ENTER:

s/ C. Clifford Shirley, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

3